Talk:Vanessa Lynne Bryant

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Vanessa Lynne Bryant was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Low rating

Should it be mentioned that she is the lowest rated federal judge in the country on the robing room? http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1627 It seems relevant that lawyers have such low regard for her. Not sure if it is a bad thing though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.24.197 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes

There seems to have been some misunderstanding resulting in these recent changes. I'll address each edit summary below:

• Cannot use online rating system as source - the reference to the rating is sourced to a secondary source, see corrected article.
• Quotes were not found in source cited. - quotes were found in cite previous, order corrected
• Rating on online system is not relevant to her federal judicial career. - it's a running rating so it's relevant for as long as she's a trial judge

There were some good non-content edits after but it took so much time to undo all this I have to leave it for later. 168.1.75.52 (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary which contained 'Cannot use online rating system as source' was the removal of something sourced to the robing room (which is not a secondary source). An anonymous online rating of a federal judge is not at all relevant nor encyclopedic for us to include. I don't agree at all with this wholesale revert (which includes edits you apparently agree with) so I will be reverting it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry but that's not how WP:BRD is supposed to work. You made massive changes, I disagreed, we discuss. Lets discuss! BTW, the reference "In October 2011, Judge Bryant was rated the worst judge in the United States" is sourced to allgov. If an RS sees fit to mention it it's not our place to question it. 168.1.75.52 (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe you're misapplying BRD- BRD does not mean 'revert everything two editors have done when you disagree with one edit that has been made in a sequence'. Your interpretation is startlingly incorrect. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Buddy, you removed three sources and all the statements cited to those sources. That's not me disagreeing with "one edit." I'm happy to talk specifics - which statements in the article do you object to? 168.1.75.52 (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the statements I objected to. If you disagree with any particular edit I've made, you're welcome to discuss it, and perhaps make edits towards remedying the particular issue. It's important to not disrupt other edits that have been made because you disagree with one specific thing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, please lets go through specific statements one by one and address them. If you feel they're not adequately sourced or for whatever reason improper I'm happy to engage in that discussion. 168.1.75.52 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright I went through and re-did all the duplicate cite removal edits, which appear to be undisputed. Hopefully y'all can hash the rest of this out without edit warring. 104.156.240.163 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's more than a little "interesting" that another IP reappears to edit-war negative material into a BLP. I have removed it pending clear consensus that it is well-sourced, properly weighted and relevant to her biography. Stacking a biography full of negative claims and attacks is not what Wikipedia is about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? Was it more than a little "interesting" when another non-IP editor appeared to "edit war" ? That's not really helpful here. What wikipedia is "about", is objectively reporting information found in reliable sources. That's what's been done here. Sometimes that makes the subject look good, sometimes it makes the subject look bad. 168.1.99.197 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

When a biography is intentionally written so as to depict the subject in a negative light, based largely or entirely upon decade-old claims and second-hand arguments of obscure websites, it is perfectly legitimate to question whether or not the article is being slanted by that subject's opponents or detractors. Placing undue weight on things which were at one time of brief interest to news media but have now been largely or entirely forgotten is, in fact, one of the most common ways of biasing a Wikipedia article. When the entire "Federal Judicial Career" section of a sitting federal judge is taken up with a bar association's claims about her before she was even appointed to that bench and second-hand reports of anonymous website comments, it is a reasonable editorial judgment that such is not the stuff of an encyclopedic biographical account. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Specifically speaking: It is notable that the ABA published a report attacking Bryant's credentials to be appointed to her position. Given the relative brevity of this biography, it is not appropriate to extensively go into the claims and detailed allegations related to that report; such places undue weight on a relatively-minor and effectively-now-unimportant bit of information. The ABA disapproved of her, the president appointed her anyway and the Senate confirmed her. The end, more or less. A more complete and balanced biography might include more details on it, but only as part of a comprehensive biography with much more information about her actual court rulings, previous career, etc. — all of which are far more important than the opinion of one particular professional group published a decade ago. Should anyone undertake to write a complete, comprehensive biography of Bryant, we can reconsider adding more details. Until then, this suffices. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If this judge is most notable for her poor rating/reviews, that's what we report. 168.1.99.197 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a fact not in evidence, however. The sourcing for this amounts to a 10-year-old judicial report and one website's four-year-old second-hand reporting of something on an anonymous online rating service. Not exactly what I'd call a compelling foundation. If the anonymous opinions of Bryant posted on "The Robing Room" are really of encyclopedic import, one would think that there would be some far more significant coverage than a single brief mention on "AllGov.com." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Given your initial content removal please note that a third revert will put you past 3RR. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BLP, the removal of questionably-sourced/UNDUE-weight negative material from the biography of a living person is exempt, and its necessity is made clear by the obvious system-gaming of anonymous IPs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)